Apparently, moderate/centrist senators, including John McCain (R-AZ), have come to an agreement on the Judicial nominations . . . I didn't see the names of the other senators involved in this Yahoo blurb or the one on AOL. Yahoo is posted here, AOL needs a sign in.

Hopefully these "gentlemen" will get this over and done, and quit this elementary school bigger penis contest and get on with their business.

"Under the terms, Democrats would agree to oppose any attempt to filibuster β and thus block final votes β on the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservative nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers."

I assume the two gentlemen from Michigan (not sure about the state) would get an up or down vote too, thus letting Saad and Myers nominations as the only ones effectively blocked.

Also involved in this are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

I congratulate these 14 Senators on averting what would have been a very nasty situation.

I have found myself very dissapointed with Minority Leader Reid (D-NV), who I thought would be a centrist willing to comprimise but has turned out as rabid and unreasonable are Nancy Pelosi and her bretheren.

Senator Reid was quoted as saying this: "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

I have a number of questions for the Senator.

Who the hell is "we"? You weren't involved in this.
What the hell kind of message does a compromise send?
Why is your party acting as though it won this fight? No one won, it was a compromise. You're giving us the floor votes we asked for!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):Hopefully these "gentlemen" will get this over and done, and quit this elementary school bigger penis contest and get on with their business.

Quoting Dingy Harry Reid "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 3):Senator Reid was quoted as saying this: "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

He's an idiot. Moderate democrats had to do his job and now he is trying to score some cheap political points.

B757300, if you can't see that these "RINO's" as you call them-who are, in fact, more the real Republican than you or your right wing extremists friends-may have just saved 7 to 8 of those 10 nominations for the President. It was their common sense-which the extremes of either party seem to lack-that led to this compromise, and will keep the Senate from becoming so polarized that it might never get fixed.

What we need is MORE, not LESS, of these so-called RINO's in the Senate and in the GOP, who aren't so beholden to extremist views, and treating the minority as a slave.

Congrats to these 14 Senators, from both parties, who had enough fortitude and common sense to overide the confrontationalists of both sides.

At some point the Senators have to figure out how to move the business of the American people forward....

calling them RINOs and the dems whatever their hardliners call their moderates will accomplish nothing but piss everyone off and create more hard feelings.

I'd call getting the 7 or so nominations to the up or down vote a definite improvement over the situation this morning.

They were headed for idiocy and this headed that off.

I still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The abuse of the filibuster action in the truly unprecedented way, and I'm talking the systematic effort....not isolated incidents over a hundred year period.....caused this situation. It has been an effort to embarrass the president, and is sure to cause major problems down the road.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):I still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The abuse of the filibuster action in the truly unprecedented way, and I'm talking the systematic effort....not isolated incidents over a hundred year period.....caused this situation. It has been an effort to embarrass the president, and is sure to cause major problems down the road.

There's where we differ. I blame the GOP and Bush, for their thirst for absolute, uncontrolled power in dominating this government, and their disregard for the minority. It's easy to see that in the fact that Bush as put forth very far right-wing nominees for these posts, because he feels his party can simply dismiss Democratic opposition. Well, he found out otherwise, didn't he?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8): still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):There's where we differ. I blame the GOP and Bush, for their thirst for absolute, uncontrolled power in dominating this government

I agree/disagree with both of you, my esteemed friends . . . I blame both sides of the aisle - and not just the members in recent history . . . but for the last decade or so . . . more so in very recent history and definitely during this judicial nomination/confirmation debacle.

I am totally frustrated with the partisan politics in DC. The country is not moving forward on issues that are of equal or greater importance than these judicial posting because damn near every politician in DC is trying to show who has the bigger muscle! It's almost to ridiculous proportions my friends. Our own Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) returned to DC today, and has yet to make comment on where she stands . . . .not so amazing given she's a junior senator and not worth a shit from the get go; couldn't find her ass with both hands and a squad of Cav Scouts. Our other Senator, Mr. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has stated his position - pretty moderate one - but has continued to tow the party line . . . . very disappointing.

Falcon, DL021 . . . both parties are to blame here gents. Both parties tried to trump the other. Both parties tried to out-politic and out-maneuver the other, at the expense of their constituency. It's a shame. It's preposterous that our government has become so petty in this vein.

I'm glad the 14 or so Senators were able to get the job done. But I'll make this wager - I bet I can name names of the Senators that were NOT involved in this negotiation . . . and the names would come from both sides of the aisle. They will be the usual crowd of Extremist Partisan Politicians that hold the Senate and thus the country's momentum virtually hostage playing their childish games.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the Republicans wanted in the first place?

Unless I understood it, the deal basically said "If you don't use the fillibuster, we won't get rid of it." Now Owens gets her vote, which she will clearly win. Democrats aren't allowed to use the fillibuster against future judges or supreme court nominees, and if they do then Frist will call a vote to eliminate the fillibuster. This was the deal. This is downright scary!

Am I missing something here? The Republicans have basically eliminated the fillibuster and gotten their judge through.

The fillibuter is still a go . . . in an Extreme Circumstance . . . . I believe that's how it was worded . . .

And the "nuclear option" is no longer on the table . . . so the way I see it both sides "won" if you can call the outcome of this "biggest penis" contest a victory . . .

The country can move forward - I hope. The nominees get the vote in the Senate. The Fillibuster is safe for the moment - as it should be - and a bunch of senators, Frist, Kennedy and others look like asses (still) and some look like heroes - McCain and Lieberman et al.

The whole situation Tbar is bullshit. As I mentioned in my post to Falcon and DL021 above - so much time spent on this rather than equally as important issues. I mean, damn, we have a budget to pass, a war in progress on two fronts, airlines tanking, gas prices in orbit . . . and these "gentlemen" (and ladies) are going to guns over some judges! Give me a break . . . . .

Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge we will be picking a Chief Justice within the next 2-3 years . . . now, that is a time when a fillibuster and all of this politicing would be necessary . . . it will be interesting to see how that pans out. I have to think, behind the closed doors, everyone acknowledged that one must pick their battles . . . and this shouldn't be one of them . . . .wait until we have a really big fight to handle - the Chief Justice will be that fight . . . .

I disagree, the only fights will be when a liberal justice steps down. The democrats know that replacing a conservative with a conservative is a zero sum game. They're going to save their bullets for a fight when it really matter - that is, when a justice that can shift the court's position on controversial issues steps down.

I'll even come out right now and predict that the justices may pair up and resign together or in close proximity - one lib / one conservative. That will allow the President to appoint two justices and not tip the scales.

As for the Chief stepping down in 2 - 3 years that's crazy. The chief has 2 or 3 months left. I'm 99% certain that the Chief won't be their come the first Monday in October 2005.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):I disagree, the only fights will be when a liberal justice steps down.

Wrong. IF Bush tries to put Scalia as CJ, there'll be a fight, big-time. "Liberals" were willing to go along with his choice as a member of the court-the vote was 100-0 for his confirmation, but I think, now seeing how really far out the guy is as a Justice, the democrats will rightly try to fight his nomination to the head of the court. He's a lunatic of the first degree, and has no business being CJ.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):I'll even come out right now and predict that the justices may pair up and resign together or in close proximity - one lib / one conservative. That will allow the President to appoint two justices and not tip the scales.

Are you saying Bush would nominate one judge who is conservative and one who is liberal, to balance the scales? ROTFL! Dream on, man! This man and his minions in Congress want to pack the court with ideological Republican judges, nothing else! He wants to end the political neutrality of the court and make it another rubber stamp for ultra-conservatism.

I find it ironic that you are calling anyone naive give your past history of predictions on this forum. Your poor record of predicting anything political even caused you to abandon your previous username to escape the laughable record that it contained.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):He's a lunatic of the first degree, and has no business being CJ.

I challange you to pick any of his opinions and debate the Constitutional argument he makes. Again it is easy to call a man a lunatic but then refuse to provide specific details of what creates his lunacy. I bet you haven't read a single one of his decisions that you could debate intelligently. Instead, in typical liberal fashion, you disagree with his position on the matter and therefore try to marginalize the man. Put up or shut up.

What you don't appreciate is that the job of a US Supreme Court Justice is to determine the Constitutionality of a piece of legislation with respect to our Constitution - not with respect to a desired policy outcome (or the rule of law in South Africa as other justices have started to cite in recent decision).

In typical liberal fashion you support a court that creates law to achieve your policy goals because the American electorate has repeatedly refused to support your agenda. It's been 10 years now that the GOP has been kicking democratic ass across the board in elections.

So please Alphafalcon, please list one opinion written by Justice Scalia and let's debate it. If you can't I think it will be clear to all who is the lunatic who so obsesses with the electoral successes of right that it consumes his existence.

What are you going to say on Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 21, 2013 can't come fast enough? Are you going to have to change your username a third time to escape what you've written. Please, please, please let's debate the facts, because Scalia's opinions are brilliant and your track record speaks for itself.

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules β a pledge that Sen. Mike DeWine (search), R-Ohio said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157431,00.html

CliffsNotes:

Democrats: We'll give you Owen, Brown, and Pryor if you don't take away our right to fillibuster, and we won't use it on future nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.

Republicans: We promise not to execute the Option as long as you don't fillibuster our future nominees under the "extraordinary circumstances" cloak.

I am going to have to agree with Tbar here. This seems like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats, because the Deal essentially gives the Republicans their judges that are currently on the table AND the option of the Option down the road.

"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):I find it ironic that you are calling anyone naive give your past history of predictions on this forum. Your poor record of predicting anything political even caused you to abandon your previous username to escape the laughable record that it contained.

ROTFL. What does that have to do with anything. If YOU honestly think Bush is going to nominate a moderate or a liberal to join The Supremes, you're just nuts. He won't. He's the last person who would nomiante somene who doesn't agree with his narrow, limited view of law, Pope!

He will nominate just what he's nominated now-right wing judges, who would rubber stamp anything a conservative does, and would block anything anyone less conservative would do. He is NOT going to "balance" the court by nominating a liberal judge. He may not nominate an ultra-conservative, like Prisclla Owen, but he certainly won't nominate anyone who is pro-abortion, pro-workers' rights, etc.

No, because I cannot conceive of anyone being a worse president than the one we currently have, so I'll stand by it. And what the hell is it to you anyway? You don't like it, Pope, you can lump it on your ultra-conservative head.

And in typical Alphafalcon fashion he refused to rise to the challange. Come on man if Scalia is such a lunatic you should be able to find just one opinion that you believe you could use to show this lunacy.

My assumption that you've never read a single opinion seems to be right on target.

Pope, I'm flattered by the attention you give me, friend. I've told you what I think of Scalia, Pope. He's anti-worker, he's anti-choice. He is in my mind out of the mainstream of this country-just like you are. I'll hold my opinion, friend, and I have NOTHING to prove to a nutcase like yourself.

So, you can keep up your obsession with me, or accept what I have said. Agian, if you don't like what I've said, that's too bad, Pope. I'm not wasting any further time on a fantast of the right like yourself. You are not worth it.

Just one opinion Alphafalcon. Put up or shut up. You keep ducking the challange. You called Scalia a lunatic - but can't seem to cite a single opinion that you believe is wrong.

It's easy to make ridiculous unsubstantiated statements when nobody calls you to the mat. It's much harder to make those statements when you've got to prove them.

Come on, it shouldn't be that hard to find a single opinion written by the "lunatic" in over 20 years on the bench. I've bet you've never read a single opinion.

You are just a lemming following the other liberal lemmings off the cliff. Try thinking for yourself instead of mindlessly repeating the talking points of your fellow libs. Look up the opinions. Research them. Think about whether or not the arguments are justified. Then form a conclusion.